Dave DeVol wrote: > Or am I just > reading to much into the CFC's thing and it will coexist perfectly with > FB?
CFCs imply a CFObjects sort of framework, so I think that the new feature will further diminish the perceived need for a fusebox. All those "why would I want to use FB?" questions are just going to be harder to answer to anyone's satisfaction. But beyond that, and despite some initial skepticism on my part, I really don't think CFCs will change much of anything for FB. As Hal said, CFCs are simply components... and FB has always been big on components. If you're anything like me, you'll spend an entertaining few hours putting together a "CFC-FB"... a fusebox inside a CFC, IOW, allowing you to call the entire app as a web service. And again, if you're anything like me, you'll eventually find yourself thinking, "Yeah, this is very cool... but wouldn't it be easier to just build a basic, stand-alone CFC that calls a normal fusebox as a custom tag?" Not that I've completely given up on CFC-FB, mind you... the "very cool" factor is enough to keep me interested for a while. :) -- Roger ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
